BEHAR: To think that gay is a choice, I don’t know how to respond to that. I mean, don’t think anybody in this world wants to be gay considering all the vilification that is brought upon someone who is gay. Why would you choose that?

CAIN: Well, you show me the science that it’s not and I’ll be persuaded. Right now it’s my opinion against the opinions of others who feel differently. That’s just a difference of opinions.

The science, of course, is abundant. Herman Cain just chooses to be unaware of the findings of:

Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that it is a choice, you still shouldn’t have your rights restricted because of it. Religion’s a choice, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK to ditch the First Amendment. By fighting on this ground, we implicitly concede the argument that if it’s a choice, then it’s OK for the state to treat people differently because of it. I think this is a grave tactical error.

Personally, I’m not convinced that the concept of choice even makes much sense in this sort of context. Is ice-cream-flavour-preference a choice? Could you simply chose to like a flavour of ice-cream that you really don’t like? What does that even mean? I guess that would be a question for Daniel over at Camels With Hammers…

To be fair, I don’t think hardly any American that isn’t a curious-minded intellectual has seen such studies. And I don’t know how they would be made aware of them even in an ideal (post-atheist-takeover) world.

But yeah, he should have done research before making a claim like that. Thankfully, he doesn’t have the “charisma” to appeal to the shallow, idiotic electorate. Unfortunately, Rick Parry does, and he seems to be even dumber.

More importantly did the ladies tell him there was evidence?, did they offer him evidence?

I just wish once in my lifetime someone would prepare for an interview of someone like this, it wouldnt be difficult to have at least one or two references ready to offer Cain, they certainly knew they were going to bring up DADT and its practicly a repugnican/xian plank point that teh ghey is a choice.

Dan Savage gave a great challenge to the Conservative Party Leader John Cummins in BC, Canada about this same topic. Basically, to prove that being gay is a choice, Cain should get down and preform a gay sex act on another man.

He won’t, because he knows that it isn’t really a choice. But that inconvenient fact wrecks his rhetoric.

“Considering that liberty ought not be restricted except for compelling reasons, can you cite a compelling reason why LGBT servicemembers ought not be allowed the same freedoms that their straight brothers- and sisters-in-arms enjoy?

There is no evidence this might harm military effectiveness, nor cause any harm to any other servicemember that might outweigh the liberty of the LGBT servicemembers.

There is evidence it does cause harm when distinguished and valuable LGBT servicemembers may be threatened with exposure and/or discharge for doing exactly what servicemembers are encouraged to do for the benefit of their mental health: maintain important relationships while on deployment AND form close bonds with members of their units.

You have declared that gender/sexuality is a choice, with no evidence to support that assertion and much evidence to the contrary. I won’t insult you by presenting the reams of evidence as I am certain you have the intellectual ond technological resources to discover them yourself, but I would like to ask this: if it is a choice, why would this make it ok to discriminate against LGBT servicemembers because of this choice when there is no evidence this choice harms their ability to serve?”

So actual gay people saying it’s not something they choose, it’s just who they are and always have been, is not “evidence” enough for him? What an idiot. I for one guess that sexual orientation is complex enough that it probably doesn’t have one specific “cause” that will ever be absolutely proven, but in any case I tend to agree with the viewpoint that it shouldn’t matter whether it’s a choice or not, even if it was it shouldn’t be the basis of discrimination any more than religious beliefs should be. As Dunc said, arguing with them that it’s not a choice seems to imply that we agree that it would be OK to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation if it was, and it wouldn’t.